JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused in S.C. No.214 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Kottayam in a prosecution under Section

308 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 26.01.2006, at about 01.30 pm, the accused stabbed CW1 (PW1) with a knife, on his paravertibral region, with such intention as to commit culpable homicide and he thereby, committed an offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Following investigation of the case, a final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally, which was committed to the Sessions Court, Kottayam for trial and disposal. The Sessions Court, Kottayam made over the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Kottayam, which framed a charge under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Following a plea of not guilty, trial was conducted and PWs 1 to 6 were examined on the side of the prosecution. Exts.P1 to P6 were marked and the material objects were marked and identified as MOs 1 to 3. On the defence side, two witnesses, namely DWs 1 and 2 were examined.

5. On a consideration of the evidence and disbelieving the version of DWs1 and 2 that it was not the accused, but some other persons who had caused injuries to CW1 (PW1), the appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years to and a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only) was ordered to be paid to PW1 to compensate for the injuries caused to him. Set off as proved under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C was also allowed.

6. Sri.S Rajeev, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused principally raised two contentions in support of the appeal. The first contention is that the appellant/accused is entitled to be acquitted on account of the fact that the appellant/accused had not been identified in the dock by any witnesses. Reference is made to the depositions of PWs 1 and 2 and to the judgments of this Court in Mohammed V. State of Kerala [2002 kHC 969] and Vayalali Girishan and Others V. state of Kerala [2016 KHC 204] and Sadasivan @ Para V. State of Kerala and Another [2020 KHC 478], to buttress the contention that failure to identify the accused in the dock is fatal to the prosecution case.

7. The next contention is that, at any rate, going by the evidence tendered in court, conviction for an offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained as the injuries are minor and that the witnesses had not deposed that there was any intention to commit murder. Reference is made in this regard to the judgment dated 22.09.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Chand @ Lala V. State (NCT) of Delhi in Crl.Appeal No.2204 of 2010, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the ingredients required for sustaining a conviction under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to support his contention, reference is also made to the evidence of PW4, the doctor, who examined and treated PW1 immediately after he was injured.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, refers to the evidence tendered by PWs 1 and 2 to contend that the question as to the accused not being identified in the dock, does not raise for consideration in this case. He states that there is only one accused in this case and the evidence of PW1 clearly shows that it was the accused who committed the offence. He also states that, at any rate, PW2 has specifically referred to the person standing in the dock as the person who committed the offence. He also states that the conviction under Section 308 IPC is justified in the facts and circumstances of this case.

9. I have considered the contentions raised by either side. I